Photonic
Ad astra!
It is most fascinating that you have stated this actually. My friend is studying it to glean information on how the human mind is controlled through the works of religion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would it be best for evolutionists to just ignore creationsts?
- Thread starter St Giordano Bruno
- Start date
It is most fascinating that you have stated this actually. My friend is studying it to glean information on how the human mind is controlled through the works of religion.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I learned some things from what you showed me and I will commend you for that, good job. However I showed you where Darwin mentioned the creator, yet he didn't take him into account when coming up with his theory. Of course he would mention the creator, his parents were Christian and he was probably also, or at least considered himself at one time to be one. If the ToE was a theory that included a creator, I can guarantee you that it wouldn’t be taught in schools. The atheists along with the ACLU would make sure of that. If you want to argue that it should include the creator and that Darwin did mean for it to include the creator then I would like to see that argument in a second scopes monkey trial.
Let me put it a different way. Let’s say that I say the Bible says that Jesus was risen from the dead but you argue that the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus was risen from the dead. Let’s say that both arguments sound reasonable. However the core faith of the Christian belief is that Jesus did rise from the dead. So whose argument has more merit? Mine does because that is the core belief of Christianity which comes from reading the Bible. Consequently if I argue that the ToE was not meant to include a creator, and you argue that it was, and it is taught that it doesn’t, whose argument is sounder?
Last edited:
Theories are not supposed to allow for a creator just because. The available evidence does not demand such a factor, so it is not offered as part of the explanation.
In fact, allowing for a creator sort of defeats the purpose of having a theory in the first place, don't you agree?
It is no different for Evolution than for Gravity or any other theory, except that there are strong religiously-motivated feelings of rejection for Evolution.
Depends what you mean.
Darwin first became a naturalist at least in part out of a desire to experience the work of God by studying God's Creation.
As I touched on a page or two back in the thread, Darwin's religious beliefs changed quite a bit over his life. He started out training to be a minister, but then decided to pursue a career in science instead. Even though it appears that he lost his personal beliefs over time (and at least at one point, considered himself an agnostic), it seems that he never stopped supporting the Church, and, as I pointed out, served on the board of his local parish until the day he died.
It doesn't implicitly include or exclude a creator, just like every other scientific theory.
I think you're confusing two different issues. We were talking about Darwin's personal motivations; now you're talking about whether the theory itself has God built into it.
It seems to me that Darwin's take on evolution - at least as he presented it in On the Origin of Species - assumed a creator god. This is different from saying that the modern theory of evolution must include God. Scientific theories aren't treated like "revealed wisdom" handed down from the first person to describe them. While it's really cool that Darwin found this, and I think he deserves appreciation for doing it, Charles Darwin does not "own" the theory of evolution.
You're missing the point. Intent is irrelevant to what the theory actually says. The only reason I brought the matter up at all was because you were making specific claims about Darwin's motives that were incorrect.
Here's the bottom line: you don't need to believe in God to accept evolution as true, but you don't need to reject God either. There are many religious people who consider evolution to be the means by which God brought about his creation.
Evolution is not a "godless" theory; it's silent on the question of God's existence. It merely describes physical, natural processes. It doesn't say anything about the source of those processes or whether they're the product of some cosmic intelligence or divine master plan.
BTW - you never answered my question: why do you think secularists (among others) are opposed to God being in science classes?
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Surely with divine authority on your side you should stay and refute the false testimony against you?
Y-e-e-s. Now, put yourself in the position of some ancient sect writing an aggressive defence of their own borderline indefensible world-view, who knew that some (most?) people were going to call them and their claims ridiculous. Isn't what you've quoted exactly what those poor deluded souls would write?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Because that's not how science works regardless of whether or not you believe in god. Science only deals with the empirical; what can be observed, measured and tested. The theory of gravity includes no mention of god, but does that make gravity an atheistic belief?
It's important for people that spread misinformation to education themselves to prevent the spreading of truly harmful ideas.
Also, creationism has never helped anything but itself. Evolution helps all people.[/quote]
How so? Can you provide an example? Science can provide facts and some whys, but when facts can't be explained, what then? I can't help but think of Darwin's dilema.
Also, creationism has never helped anything but itself. Evolution helps all people.[/quote]
How so? Can you provide an example? Science can provide facts and some whys, but when facts can't be explained, what then? I can't help but think of Darwin's dilema.
outhouse
Atheistically
How so? Can you provide an example? Science can provide facts and some whys, but when facts can't be explained, what then? I can't help but think of Darwin's dilema.[/quote]
when you understand there is no debate about evolution, your personal knowledge will grow.
There is no "Darwins dilema" that is a creationist construct because they dont or wont look at the valid evidence presented
Photonic
Ad astra!
You know all those medicines that keep various future strains of deadly virus's and bacteria away?
Evolution in medicine.
Evolutionary medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Science does not need to be metaphysical, and indeed works best when it doesn't try to.
Facts don't always demand an explanation. Do you see a need to explain gravity or electricity?
As for Darwin's Dilemma, what would that be? I don't think I have heard of it.
Skwim
Veteran Member
It's one of those creationist rusty meat hooks on which they hang there arguments against evolution.
From the Science Daily web page of Jan. 9, 2009
"To the question of why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these…periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer’.
These words, written by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1859, summarise what has come to be known as ‘Darwin’s Dilemma’ – the lack of fossils in sediment from the Precambrian (c. 4500 – 542 Mya). If Darwin’s theory of natural selection was right, life evolved gradually over millions of years. However, the Cambrian period, which began around 542 million years ago, seemed to herald a sudden rapid increase in species diversity, an event which has come to be known as the ‘Cambrian explosion’."
source
Interestingly enough the article from which this quote was taken is titled "Solution To Darwin's Dilemma Of 1859" and goes on to explain away the dilemma.These words, written by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1859, summarise what has come to be known as ‘Darwin’s Dilemma’ – the lack of fossils in sediment from the Precambrian (c. 4500 – 542 Mya). If Darwin’s theory of natural selection was right, life evolved gradually over millions of years. However, the Cambrian period, which began around 542 million years ago, seemed to herald a sudden rapid increase in species diversity, an event which has come to be known as the ‘Cambrian explosion’."
source
You're about 150 years behind the times on that one, aren't you?
In other words, it is grasping at straws. As expected.
St Giordano Bruno
Well-Known Member
If we started giving flat earth believers more air time we may have to stomach as much rubbish from them as we get from creationists.
Draka
Wonder Woman
But, but, the earth IS flat! Just stand in Nebraska and look all around you! Nothing but flat as far as the eye can see.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I get your point that it is okay to accept evolution and accept that there could be a God behind evolution. And that trap has snared a lot of Christians, but not me. Not a man of faith. The ToE as it stands is irreconcilable with the Bible. So what Christians have to do is compromise on the Bible in order to accept evolution, which I am not willing to do.
And I believe that the scientific evidence supports the Bibles account of creation. We dont have the ape like creature to look at that man supposedly came from and that supports the Bibles account of creation. If it aint there, it aint there.